"Linux vendor Canonical said it has 'no interest' in Linux kernel development. Two weeks ago a Linux Foundation report showed that since version 2.6.32, Microsoft had committed more code to the Linux kernel than Canonical. Since then, Canonical has faced claims from rivals that it does not contribute to Linux as much as it should given its popularity. Recently Canonical founder Mark Shuttleworth told The Inquirer that his company has no interest in contributing to the Linux kernel." Why is this such a bad thing? You can contribute more to open source than code alone. Like, I don't know, users?

My PC at work is powered by a polished Ubuntu Linux that runs fast enough and flawlessly. Most of my workmates work with PCs running a version of MS Windows, and all of them are fed up of their sluggish, daily user experience. An old PC running Windows XP is by far more wanted than another one with better hardware running Windows Vista.

Many of them do not switch to Ubuntu - or whatever Linux distro - because the software they work with is only available for MS Windows; should not be the case and they would make the required effort.

So if we talk about contributions, it is not only the code given to other important FOSS projects: Ubuntu, like other distros targeted to the average, no computer-savvy user, has also made a big contribution by showing with facts that there are alternatives to Apple and the MS Windows de facto monopoly on desktop.